"Apple has made a clear showing that, in the absence of a preliminary injunction, it is likely to lose substantial market share in the smartphone market and to lose substantial downstream sales of future smartphone purchases and tag-along products," Judge Koh said in Friday's ruling.

First of all, this seems to be yet another admission by Apple that it just can't compete in the marketplace against Samsung. Such a ruling seems to scream out to potential buyers: hey, check out the devices that even Apple admits you'd want over its own. But, more importantly, "losing substantial market share" is what competition is all about. If someone comes out with a better product, then the other company should lose substantial market share. That doesn't deserve an injunction. That harms the market, who clearly -- even by Apple's own admission, apparently -- wants the other product more.

The fact that two phones will compete is no reason to ban a phone. Let them compete. Let the market decide.

Even more bizarre is why an injunction should be issued at all. Following the MercExchange decision, courts are only supposed to issue injunctions in exceptional cases. If it's an issue that can be dealt with by requiring a royalty, then there's no reason to issue an injunction.

Samsung, of course, is appealing this and asking that the injunction be put on hold until that appeal is heard. In the meantime, some are pointing out that, for all of Apple's insistence that Samsung copied the designs of its phone and tablet from Apple, you could easily make the argument that Apple got some inspiration from Samsung as well:

And really, that's the point. Innovation and advancement involve all sorts of copying, but also improvements. It goes back and forth. Attacking one party for copying another misses the point, limits competition and harms consumers. It's too bad the US patent system and the courts now want to aid that process.

from the why-we-can't-have-cool-things dept

In one of many Apple patent fights concerning smartphones, it went after Taiwanese smartphone maker HTC in both the courts and using the infamous ITC loophole that gives the company two separate cracks and blocking competition using the same patents. The ITC ruled in Apple's favor late last year, issuing its customary injunction (the ITC can only issue injunctions blocking import, rather than any monetary award). HTC was given time to create a fix, but the injunction has apparently gone into effect, and it means that the newest HTC phones -- eagerly awaited by some -- are being held at the border by customs to make sure that allowing them into the country won't violate the ITC injunction. It's pretty sad that Apple doesn't appear to think that it can actually compete on the merits in the marketplace, but rather has to resort to this sort of protectionism. Similar to Apple's complaints against Samsung, I have to admit that all this has really done is increase my interest in both the HTC One X and the HTC Evo LTE. If a smartphone is so good that even Apple is scared to compete against it, well, that seems like a phone that might be worth having...

from the a-little-bit-of-good-news dept

We've been following the story of how CSIRO, an Australian gov't agency, has claimed a patent on WiFi for years. Last year, we were pretty surprised that a judge not only sided with CSIRO in a case against Buffalo Technology, but issued an injunction, barring the company from selling its WiFi equipment. This was despite the recent Supreme Court decision that said patent injunctions should only be issued in certain circumstances (in the past, it was quite common to issue injunctions). The case is now being reviewed, and the good news is that a court has at least temporarily lifted the injunction while the court reviews whether or not the patent is even valid. This case could have a huge impact on a series of other cases that CSIRO has filed against pretty much everyone offering WiFi equipment.